I would like to compliment R.N. Bhaskar for his thought-provoking article (“A right to dignified death”, Mint, 9 September). The questions raised have no easy answers, but they have succeed in making the reader think about euthanasia’s moral and ethical dimensions. This article reminded me of a Sanskrit verse: Tyajedekam kulasyaarthe; graamasy-aarthe kulam tyajet. Graamam janapadasyaarthe; Aatmaarthe prithveem tyajet, which means we should be able to sacrifice for the welfare of the tribe; if necessary the tribe for the welfare of the village; for the welfare of the people of the village we should be ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of salvation. I would like to once again thank Bhaskar for bringing back to memory this profound verse.
— Vishwas Mysore
Apropos Premchand Palety’s article (“Socio-economic issues: B-schools must do more”, Mint, 8 September). The main responsibility of business is to earn profits. Any other objective is secondary and incidental.
It is the responsibility of government to frame laws which attract enterprise for a mutually beneficial relationship between the profitable business and prosperous society.
To achieve this dual objective, the government needs to provide all possible support in the form of creating and maintaining infrastructure. Additionally, it can engage the corporate world in framing stringent laws for the industry to maintain ecological well-being.
Unfortunately, successive governments have failed to provide basic infrastructure and forced price controls on firms. The corporate sector has grudgingly accommodated and accepted such unfair practices. On top of this “forced charity to the society”, the government continues to milk the corporate cash cows with high taxes without any compunction or guilt! This additional and endless corporate social responsibility (CSR) is bound to boomerang. Global companies would start avoiding any governments that make unfair demands of CSR.
Creating awareness and finding solutions of these contentious issues may become a part of every B-school curriculum, but it is totally misplaced to expect management schools to contribute towards them.
— Anant Gupta
Journalism and media have become big business and simple commercial sense dictates being on the right side of the establishment.
So, while your editorial (“India after the NSG waiver”, Mint, 8 September) throws its complete support to the nuclear deal, many of us are entitled to ask uncomfortable questions. Unfortunately, when even that is challenged and castigated for merely “scoring political brownie points”, one truly wonders about Mint’s journalistic ethics.
The fact is that “exemption” granted to India by the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) is no victory but a blow to our status as a nuclear weapons state. The facts don’t substantiate the United Progressive Alliance government’s claims.
India is now going to spend billions to buy dangerous fission reactors, only to be left with the possibility of Australians and Americans holding the proverbial Damocles’ Sword of disruptions in uranium supplies over us.
India has been coerced into de facto accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, and other treaties that were set up to keep India muzzled.
The entire nuclear deal is coming at an enormous cost — loss of independent nuclear deterrent and intrusive inspection of the nuclear set-up, which happy proliferators such as China are not subject to — this is perhaps the worst act any government has taken since independence. Independent and objective media could have highlighted these aspects but alas, like Mint, many have selected to pawn their autonomy and duty to the nation at the altar of convenience.
— Ashok Gupta